I have realized I don’t understand the first thing about evolutionary psychology.
If you’re really curious, I recommend picking up an evolutionary psychology textbook rather than speculating/seeking feedback on speculations from non-experts. Lots of people have strong opinions about Evo Psych without actually having much real knowledge about the discipline.
Anecdotally, in more traditional societies what typically men want is not a huge army of children but a high-status male heir
I don’t really believe in this anecdote; large numbers of children are definitely a point of pride in traditional cultures.
Since most women managed to reproduce, we can assume a winner strategy is having a large number of daughters
Surely you don’t think daughters are more reproductively successful than sons on average?
Every child has both a mother and a father, and there are about as many men as women, so the mean number of children is about the same for males as for females. But there are more childless men than childless women, because polygyny is more common than polyandry, ultimately because of Bateman’s principle.
If you’re really curious, I recommend picking up an evolutionary psychology textbook rather than speculating/seeking feedback on speculations from non-experts. Lots of people have strong opinions about Evo Psych without actually having much real knowledge about the discipline.
I don’t really believe in this anecdote; large numbers of children are definitely a point of pride in traditional cultures.
Surely you don’t think daughters are more reproductively successful than sons on average?
Surely I do—it is common knowledge today that about 40% of men and 80% of women managed to reproduce?
Every child has both a mother and a father, and there are about as many men as women, so the mean number of children is about the same for males as for females. But there are more childless men than childless women, because polygyny is more common than polyandry, ultimately because of Bateman’s principle.